Nwozuzu v. United States

15-2793-cv Nwozuzu v. United States of America UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 10th day of October, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KELECHI GERALD NWOZUZU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 15-2793-cv UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FOR APPELLANT: Kelechi Gerald Nwozuzu, pro se, Jamaica, New York. FOR APPELLEE: Natasha W. Teleanu, Christopher Connolly, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Joon H. Kim, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, New York. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Lorna G. Schofield, Judge). 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on August 14, 2015, is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff Kelechi Gerald Nwozuzu, proceeding pro se, sues the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671–2680, alleging false imprisonment for two periods of immigration detention between 2005 and 2012. 1 Nwozuzu here appeals the dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). On appeal from such a dismissal, we review a district court’s legal conclusions de novo, see Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 751 (2d Cir. 2016), and its factual findings for clear error, see Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecomms., S.à.r.l, 790 F.3d 411, 417 (2d Cir. 2015). In so doing, we take as true the complaint’s material allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. See Mantena v. Johnson, 809 F.3d 721, 727 (2d Cir. 2015). In applying these standards here, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. “The FTCA waives the government’s sovereign immunity in actions for money damages arising out of injury, loss of property, personal injury or death caused by the ‘negligent or wrongful’ act or omission of a government employee ‘while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.’” Fountain v. ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals